Guide to making claims based on research
Options
Replies
-
Dave198lbs wrote: »for the person brand new to taking some control of their health and deciding to finally lose weight, whether from a doctor's advice or peer pressure or just some sort of self awakening, the power of positive thinking cannot be emphasized enough. If a person believes and is committed to not eating after 7 pm, or cutting back on sugar, or having 6 small meals a day, I would encourage them to go on believing it until they eventually learn on their own that those things really don't matter.
I don't see any value in breaking their bubble if it is indeed helping them via a positive way of thinking to get some control over their eating. Most folks here are not into all the research and studies and such. Most here are struggling just to eat in a deficit.
Personally, I would rather learn the facts and deal with them early on so they can learn a sustainable, realistic way to lose.
I don't think this thread is for the normal, looking for advice peeps. It's for the ones that get on their high horses and start speaking in absolutes instead of generals, and freak out said norms. You know, the ones that are going to get all butt hurt and start arguing any minute.
I must go look for the unicorns and cat gifs now.0 -
I'd say it's pretty much geared towards people who do the following:Liftng4Lis wrote: »Dave198lbs wrote: »for the person brand new to taking some control of their health and deciding to finally lose weight, whether from a doctor's advice or peer pressure or just some sort of self awakening, the power of positive thinking cannot be emphasized enough. If a person believes and is committed to not eating after 7 pm, or cutting back on sugar, or having 6 small meals a day, I would encourage them to go on believing it until they eventually learn on their own that those things really don't matter.
I don't see any value in breaking their bubble if it is indeed helping them via a positive way of thinking to get some control over their eating. Most folks here are not into all the research and studies and such. Most here are struggling just to eat in a deficit.
Personally, I would rather learn the facts and deal with them early on so they can learn a sustainable, realistic way to lose.
I don't think this thread is for the normal, looking for advice peeps. It's for the ones that get on their high horses and start speaking in absolutes instead of generals, and freak out said norms. You know, the ones that are going to get all butt hurt and start arguing any minute.
I must go look for the unicorns and cat gifs now.
Them: There are so many articles talking about how bread causes brain cancer. Not eating bread will thus make you not get brain cancer!
Us: Can you share the specific articles you've learned this information from?
Them: I do not have time to post those/Google it yourself/just repeats the claim
0 -
Yeah, I got that.
There will be some who think, "Ooooh, how cool and smart! She really got that other poster!" and be impressed.
I'm not one of them and hope that poster didn't take anything I said as if I was referencing her (him?) in any way because that was not the case.
I have no need or desire to participate in the attempt to shame, humiliate or make fun of that person...and, in fact, would much rather be wrong than be a party to that.
Ok. Since you've insisted this was something dirty, I had to go read the thread
If WalkingAlong had put in just a tenth of the effort supplied by Ana, we might have all had a nice read and potentially been more educated for it. That said, there is no law that you have to properly cite your claims on MyFitnessPal forums. After all, some posts are ultimately more useful than others
And creating a new thread doesnt automatically have to be some sort of jab. Sometimes it's a better option than continuing to poo poo a thread started by someone else
0 -
can someone PLEASE put a link to the cancer thread, i can't find it and i wanna read!!!0
-
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/30411769#Comment_30411769emily_stew wrote: »longtimeterp wrote: »can someone PLEASE put a link to the cancer thread, i can't find it and i wanna read!!!
Ditto!0 -
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/30411769#Comment_30411769emily_stew wrote: »longtimeterp wrote: »can someone PLEASE put a link to the cancer thread, i can't find it and i wanna read!!!
Ditto!
Oh, I see...
It reminded me of one of the old paleo threads....lol
0 -
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/30411769#Comment_30411769emily_stew wrote: »longtimeterp wrote: »can someone PLEASE put a link to the cancer thread, i can't find it and i wanna read!!!
Ditto!
Well, i IF, so i might be in the opposite camp now, as over the years i too have read studies which indicate the potential health benefits however i can't recall the specific places i've seen them. I also know i personally enjoy larger meals, so IF works for me...and with the amount of alcohol i drink, i don't think any diet will reduce my cancer risk!
And yes, this is the internet not a graduate research paper, so studies are great, but not necessary for supporting one's OPINION...and this is just my opinion... :-)0 -
longtimeterp wrote: »
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/30411769#Comment_30411769emily_stew wrote: »longtimeterp wrote: »can someone PLEASE put a link to the cancer thread, i can't find it and i wanna read!!!
Ditto!
Well, i IF, so i might be in the opposite camp now, as over the years i too have read studies which indicate the potential health benefits however i can't recall the specific places i've seen them. I also know i personally enjoy larger meals, so IF works for me...and with the amount of alcohol i drink, i don't think any diet will reduce my cancer risk!
And yes, this is the internet not a graduate research paper, so studies are great, but not necessary for supporting one's OPINION...and this is just my opinion... :-)
..and the difference is that you stated it was your opinion...0 -
Did I say "people that IF have lower instances of cancer"? Did I not point you all to the places to find the studies (including the books)? I can't read it to you. It wouldn't work, if I did, anyway.I just now saw the other thread and realized this one was created to take a jab at another poster.
Geez.
poster in said thread claimed that people that IF have lower instances of cancer…when asked to provide evidence of said claim that poster could not, or would not ..
I think that when people are saying that die x will prevent cancer that they should be required to back it up with fact ….
Here's what I said, which by the way was directly in response to someone's question of "Why would anyone subject themselves to IF?"
"...There are also valid health reasons for choosing it over a stable daily deficit. Studies have found it preserves more lean mass than daily dieting and leads to improvements in overall health. There is evidence that it can help prevent diabetes, dementia, cardiovascular disease and cancer."
Note the difference from what I said to what you think I said? I would never phrase something as an absolute truth, in this area. There are studies that found evidence of these things. Hence the books. Obviously, there are studies that also found contrary evidence. I never suggested this was the final word (though others in the thread did claim to have the final answer).
I don't need to type up the bibliographies of the books to answer a question someone asked. Why would I anyway, since half the people asking don't understand what "peer review" even means? Ana, who is presenting herself as an expert here, took a glance at the peer reviewed Aragon, Schoenfeld, et al study posted here yesterday and concluded that since it had a sample of 20, it was invalid. Who do you think the 'peers' are who reviewed these articles? It's not Aragon's gym buddies. It's experts in the field who decided that study WAS valid, was worth publishing and worth learning from.0 -
I don't think that books are a particularly reliable source of evidence. Usually they're written by someone with a particular hypothesis or stance. They may cite plenty of scientific studies, but they will be studies that support their hypothesis, and not those that don't. It gives the reader the false impression that it's the truth, when in fact it's not really a balanced presentation of the evidence.
Academic books may be different, but unless they're current, they are quickly outdated.0 -
Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »I don't think that books are a particularly reliable source of evidence. Usually they're written by someone with a particular hypothesis or stance. They may cite plenty of scientific studies, but they will be studies that support their hypothesis, and not those that don't. It gives the reader the false impression that it's the truth, when in fact it's not really a balanced presentation of the evidence.
Academic books may be different, but unless they're current, they are quickly outdated.
Books that are basically edited by someone and are a collection of many articles are more common, especially from a money standpoint, and I'd say are worth checking out/using as a reference.Since this allows you to read many articles in one spot.
But one large book by one researcher can be just fine, assuming that you can tell it's ot biased research. usually if funding comes from a specific organization then I would call it into question. E.g. if research is paid for by like... "National Anti-Sugar Corporation" and the study of course finds evidence that sugar is bad, I'd look for other sources unrelated to this article/book.0 -
Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »Academic books may be different, but unless they're current, they are quickly outdated.
Please cite your source.
LOL.
In other words, exactly who is going to police which statements get cited and which get approved as general knowledge?
There are a great number of people on this website who know what works for them. They've read, they've worked with trainers, they've been immersed in the world of nutrition and exercise for a while.
They forget that when they were learning, they heard a great deal of conflicting information and sorted out what worked for them and what didn't.
However, they present their positions as if their position is Truth.
Here's a good case in point.
X writes: Carbs are the devil! Get them out of your system now and you'll be liberated forever from cravings! Also you should never cardio ever.
Then a flurry of /quote /quote ^^^No
and
/quote /quote ^^^You are so wrong, OP! Where are you getting this? Cite your source!!!!
Ok, OP might be out of his or her mind, but why does the responder get a free pass? Shouldn't he or she ALSO cite his or her sources?0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
Did I say "people that IF have lower instances of cancer"? Did I not point you all to the places to find the studies (including the books)? I can't read it to you. It wouldn't work, if I did, anyway.I just now saw the other thread and realized this one was created to take a jab at another poster.
Geez.
poster in said thread claimed that people that IF have lower instances of cancer…when asked to provide evidence of said claim that poster could not, or would not ..
I think that when people are saying that die x will prevent cancer that they should be required to back it up with fact ….
Here's what I said, which by the way was directly in response to someone's question of "Why would anyone subject themselves to IF?"
"...There are also valid health reasons for choosing it over a stable daily deficit. Studies have found it preserves more lean mass than daily dieting and leads to improvements in overall health. There is evidence that it can help prevent diabetes, dementia, cardiovascular disease and cancer."
Note the difference from what I said to what you think I said? I would never phrase something as an absolute truth, in this area. There are studies that found evidence of these things. Hence the books. Obviously, there are studies that also found contrary evidence. I never suggested this was the final word (though others in the thread did claim to have the final answer).
I don't need to type up the bibliographies of the books to answer a question someone asked. Why would I anyway, since half the people asking don't understand what "peer review" even means? Ana, who is presenting herself as an expert here, took a glance at the peer reviewed Aragon, Schoenfeld, et al study posted here yesterday and concluded that since it had a sample of 20, it was invalid. Who do you think the 'peers' are who reviewed these articles? It's not Aragon's gym buddies. It's experts in the field who decided that study WAS valid, was worth publishing and worth learning from.
But none of the articles that were linked in your Google search even made reference to these other diseases/etc that you mentioned. Only obesity and body composition in rats. (again, it would be heplful if you specified which articles you were referencing - for instance, Costa & McCrae originally put out research indicating that personality remained stable after age 30, but then later on put out research talking about how specific facets of personality change with age. So if I were to say "oh yeah Costa and Mcrae have plenty of articles about personality change" and then just linked to a global search, you'd have no way of knowing which articles I am taking my information from or whether I even meant that personality change happens or that it doesn't happen due to the authors' mutliple findings)
Most of us likely have not read the books, and thus have no idea what the books have referenced. Hence asking someone who HAS read the secondary source to try and provide names for primary sources or perhaps a link of the secondary source's references.
As for your Aragon et al article, I have no idea what you are talking about. So perhaps post a link to the thread itself? Because most likely, I simply said that because the sample size is small, it cannot automatically be generalized to the larger population.
ETA if you do have a PhD, and presumably teach, do you not properly cite your references in your class lecture notes? If so, then.... you must have gotten your doctorate with Dr Oz.0 -
This thread makes me lulz.
Expecting people to make claims based on research, on a forum focused on weightloss, unhealthy eating approaches, baking soda, chalean extreme, and green coffee extract.
Yeah. OP, you should realize that at least in the US, scientific understanding is at an all time low over the last 100 years, as is confidence in science. On top of that, almost 50% of the US thinks evolution is false.
These are not the droids you are looking for. These people want to watch forks over knives and consider it as correct or even more correct than peer reviewed research.0 -
This thread makes me lulz.
Expecting people to make claims based on research, on a forum focused on weightloss, unhealthy eating approaches, baking soda, chalean extreme, and green coffee extract.
Yeah. OP, you should realize that at least in the US, scientific understanding is at an all time low over the last 100 years, as is confidence in science. On top of that, almost 50% of the US thinks evolution is false.
These are not the droids you are looking for. These people want to watch forks over knives and consider it as correct or even more correct than peer reviewed research.
I am not expecting people to make claims based on research.
But when people DO say "research shows that...." which happens a LOT, then they should be doing it without basically talking out of their @ss. And as the thread with WalkingAlong demonstrates, a big problem is that people will ask the poster to share the links or titles of articles that the OP got their info from when the OP made a "research shows that" claim, and then OP will get defensive or just say "I cannot be bothered to post links, do it yourself."0 -
And as far as the Aragon, Schoenfel et al comment above, the only post that I could find that has been made within the last week and that involved research by these people is a thread about fasted cardio, which I did not even participate in.
So... huh?
community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10023219/yet-another-study-debunking-fasted-cardio/p10 -
Then flag em as spam, and move.com.org.
You're preaching the wrong thing. It would be much more efficient and worthwhile to start small. Disabuse people of reading blogs written by idiots and crowing it as credible sourcing.0 -
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 392 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions